Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

I don’t know what that means, either, but, then again, I am not the one who made this claim about the Tiahrt amendment ….

edge540 wrote:

I have already indicated with three sources as to why I have a problem with the Tiahrt Amendments- they protect the straw purchasers from being caught, charged and prosecuted.
They PREVENT the straw purchasers from being punished according to the law, something that you purportedly support:

…. and refused to back it up.

The three sources I posted back it it up just fine. If you choose to ignore all the evidence in those articles and stick your head in the sand that's your problem, not mine. Refuting what is in those articles is up to you, not me.

Quote :

So, whenever you can tell me exactly which part of the Tiahrt amendment supports your claim, we can discuss it.
‘kay?

If you had read the articles you would know that the amendmants are attached to 500 page omnibus spending bills. Feel free to look them up yourself so you can refute the evidence in the three articles.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

…. how do you feel about the gun show loophole?

I believe that each state has the right to make and enforce its own laws unless said laws are deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I didn't ask you about states rights now did I, I asked you how you feel about the gun show loophole.
I take it you have no problem with private unlicensed gun dealers selling weapons to people at gun shows who can't pass background checks...right?

What do you think about the loophole letting people on the Terror Watch List buy guns?
The NRA has opposed efforts to keep people on terror watch lists from purchasing guns. Do you agree with the NRA that people on terror watch lists should be able to buy guns?...yes?...no?

Will The NRA Keep Supporting The Loophole Letting People On Terror Watch List Buy Guns?

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105100019[/quote]

happy jack wrote:

If your claim is indeed factual, then it should be quite the piece of cake for you to point me to the section of the amendment that backs up your claim.
If your claim is indeed factual, then proof of that should be only a few mouse clicks away.

Now read very slowly...I DID NOT WRITE THE THREE ARTICLES.

Sorry, it's not MY claim:

Quote :

...the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” thwart such checks by requiring the Justice Department to destroy the record of any gun buyer whose purchase was approved within 24 hours. As a result, law enforcement is often blind to straw purchasers who are flooding the streets with guns right under their noses...For years, the Tiahrt Amendments have been standing in the way of law enforcement efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals.

Is there any specific part you can not grasp?
So in other words:
They PREVENT the straw purchasers from being punished according to the law, something that you purportedly support.
Why are you having such a hard time comprehending the facts?
You can whine and cry all day that it's my claim, it's not.

Quote :

It is not up to me to refute the articles, as I made no claims one way or another about the amendment.

No shit? and here I thought you did not agree with articles, please forgive me.
Great, so then you agree with what is in the three articles, right?

Quote :

The burden of proof always falls upon the claimant,

Like I said, I'm not the claimant.

Quote :

and I have no intention of slogging through 500 pages of legalese in order to refute a claim that you are too lazy to even attempt to prove. Obviously someone had to have read those 500 pages thoroughly enough to find the oh-so-elusive portion of the amendment that you, and they, refuse to cite.
Correct?

No, you're wrong.
I also have no intention of slogging through 500 pages of legalese in order to refute a claim made by someone else.

It's up to you to prove them wrong, not me.
Go ahead, prove THEM wrong. I have no problem with the articles as I find them credible.

So Rambo, you going to address the other questions about the NRA?

Oh, did you watch the video posted by Heretic? You do want to be well informed, yes?

happy jack wrote:

Until you show me the precise wording in the amendment that the articles are based upon, your articles are worthless.

Why is that? because you say so?

How about this from wiki? this "worthless" too?

Quote :

The Tiahrt amendments are a series of amendments to appropriations bills and named for the sponsor, former U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-KS. They became law in 2003 and prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing data from crime gun traces. Gun traces reveal when, where, and from whom a gun recovered from a crime was originally purchased. In 2004, the Tiahrt amendments further restricted crime gun-trace data by limiting access to government officials and prohibiting the use of these data in firearm dealer license revocations and civil law suits. In addition, the law prohibits ATF from requiring gun dealers to do a physical inventory of their firearms for compliance inspections and requires the FBI to destroy data from background checks of gun purchasers within 24 hours.

Is all that a lie? Essentially you're calling the authors of these articles and others liars over what is in fact common knowledge.
You're making yourself look like a disingenuous utter fool.

edge540 wrote:

So Rambo, you going to address the other questions about the NRA?

Quote :

I already did.
Are you blind?

No you did not and I'm not blind. Perhaps you're seeing things or maybe it's the voices in your head. No wait, actually you're lying. You gave me some bullshit about states rights which does not answer the questions.
Please show me preciseley your answers to the highlighted questions:

happy jack wrote:

I take it you have no problem with private unlicensed gun dealers selling weapons to people at gun shows who can't pass background checks...right?
What do you think about the loophole letting people on the Terror Watch List buy guns?
The NRA has opposed efforts to keep people on terror watch lists from purchasing guns. Do you agree with the NRA that people on terror watch lists should be able to buy guns?...yes?...no?
Will The NRA Keep Supporting The Loophole Letting People On Terror Watch List Buy Guns?

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105100019

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Until you show me the precise wording in the amendment that the articles are based upon, your articles are worthless.

Why is that? because you say so?

How about this from wiki? this "worthless" too?

Quote :

The Tiahrt amendments are a series of amendments to appropriations bills and named for the sponsor, former U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-KS. They became law in 2003 and prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing data from crime gun traces. Gun traces reveal when, where, and from whom a gun recovered from a crime was originally purchased. In 2004, the Tiahrt amendments further restricted crime gun-trace data by limiting access to government officials and prohibiting the use of these data in firearm dealer license revocations and civil law suits. In addition, the law prohibits ATF from requiring gun dealers to do a physical inventory of their firearms for compliance inspections and requires the FBI to destroy data from background checks of gun purchasers within 24 hours.

Is all that a lie? Essentially you're calling the authors of these articles and others liars over what is in fact common knowledge.
You're making yourself look like a disingenuous utter fool.

For the sake of this argument, I’ll stipulate that all that is true. But it does nothing to back up your claim:

edge540 wrote:

I have already indicated with three sources as to why I have a problem with the Tiahrt Amendments- “they protect the straw purchasers from being caught, charged and prosecuted."
They PREVENT the straw purchasers from being punished according to the law, something that you purportedly support”:

Pay close attention to the highlighted portion below and then explain to me how the amendment “prevent(s) straw purchasers from being punished according to the law”, as you have been claiming.
Pay particularly close attention to the words 'anyone other than'.
If you’re having trouble with this, then allow me to translate for you. When the amendment says “anyone other than” police and prosecutors, then that means that police and prosecutors do have access to the gun traces and may use that data in the furtherance of catching, charging, and prosecuting the straw purchasers.
Is it beginning to sink in yet?



That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

So Rambo, you going to address the other questions about the NRA?

Quote :

I already did.
Are you blind?

No you did not and I'm not blind. Perhaps you're seeing things or maybe it's the voices in your head. No wait, actually you're lying. You gave me some bullshit about states rights which does not answer the questions.
Please show me preciseley your answers to the highlighted questions:

Yes, I did address your questions.
The fact that you did not like my responses seems to be your problem, not mine.

You lie

happy jack wrote:

Pay close attention to the highlighted portion below and then explain to me how the amendment “prevent(s) straw purchasers from being punished according to the law”, as you have been claiming.
Pay particularly close attention to the words 'anyone other than'.
If you’re having trouble with this, then allow me to translate for you. When the amendment says “anyone other than” police and prosecutors, then that means that police and prosecutors do have access to the gun traces and may use that data in the furtherance of catching, charging, and prosecuting the straw purchasers.
[/i]

Except after 24 hours the data is destroyed which means the police, ATF, FBI, Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau and prosecutors are fucked. You think an investigation takes longer than 24 hours inspector Rambo?

Quote :

For the sake of this argument, I’ll stipulate that all that is true

Great!

Quote :

Tiahrt Requires FBI NICS background check records to be destroyed within 24 hours:

The Tiahrt Amendments require the Justice Department to destroy the record of a buyer whose NICS background check was approved within 24 hours. This makes it harder to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records, and it makes it more difficult to identify and track straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn’t be able to pass a background check.

Your source also does not address this issue:

Quote :

Tiahrt blocks state and local authorities from full access to crime gun trace data:
The Tiahrt Amendments force gun trace data requests to be made in connection with individual criminal investigations or prosecutions, blocking full access to the aggregate data that law enforcement need to examine gun trafficking patterns and make key connections between separate cases. Furthermore, state and local governments are prohibited from seeing trace data or using it in administrative license reviews.

Is the light bulb on yet?
If it is you know how the amendment “prevent(s) straw purchasers from being punished according to the law.”
Sinking in yet?

happy jack wrote:

But you've never seen the actual amendment, have you?

That's right, I don't have to, never did.

Quote :

You seem to have been relying on others to interpret the amendment for you and to tell you what your opinion should be.
So please, one more time - produce the amendment itself and not someone else's version of it.
If these portions of the amendment truly exist, then that should be a quite simple task.
Sinking in yet?

Ah, now you're back to your childish troll bullshit.
Too bad, sorry Rambo, you said:

Quote :

For the sake of this argument, I’ll stipulate that all that is true

Bottom line:
Those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition ARE indeed contributing to the violence and yes, you do support the NRA and their extremist agenda. You confirmed it by refusing to answer the questions.

That's game set match, liar, see ya...
and this ball game is ova.

Go ahead and find it because you know, it's "quite simple task."

Quote :

For the sake of this argument, I’ll stipulate that all that is true

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

But you've never seen the actual amendment, have you?

That's right, I don't have to, never did.

Quote :

You seem to have been relying on others to interpret the amendment for you and to tell you what your opinion should be.
So please, one more time - produce the amendment itself and not someone else's version of it.
If these portions of the amendment truly exist, then that should be a quite simple task.
Sinking in yet?

Ah, now you're back to your childish troll bullshit.
Too bad, sorry Rambo, you said:

Quote :

For the sake of this argument, I’ll stipulate that all that is true

Bottom line:
Those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition ARE indeed contributing to the violence and yes, you do support the NRA and their extremist agenda. You confirmed it by refusing to answer the questions.

That's game set match, liar, see ya...
and this ball game is ova.

Well done,Edge I suggest that you start using the button more often. The troll is not interested in honest discussion will attempt to run you around in circles while ignoring your direct questions. It's a tactic he adapted after getting his butt kicked over and over by all of us.

Hey jack,
Next time a cop stops you for a traffic violation and starts writing you a ticket, be sure to tell him that you want to see a certified copy of the law and the exact wording of it so you and only you can interpret the law and not rely on someone else's version of it.
Let us know how that works out.

Taking back that stipulation, eh?

good move